Written by a 17 years old JC girl in her blog
Subject: Gayle Goh on Ministers Salaries
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
The issue of Singaporean ministerial salaries has been a
hotly-debated one,
at least behind the scenes of mainstream journalism. I did a quick
search
on Google to find out the exact figures, but couldn't find as wide
a range
of independent observations and chronicles as I normally like to,
so as to
lend the information credibility. If anyone has differing figures
they deem
more accurate, do update me. But the consensus I gather from
the
Internet is that our ministers are the highest paid in the world,
and that
the Prime Minister's basic salary is USD 1 239 240 per annum, or
SGD 1 958000 (I converted SGD to USD using the latest exchange rate
of 1USD= 1.58SGD; again, tell me if I'm wrong with the figures).
That is more than six times that of the US President's salary of
USD 200 000 per annum.
The defence the PAP has always launched against the accusation that
their
salaries are too high is to say: "We must do so in order to
prevent
corruption." I have always found that to be a thin excuse. What,
after all,
is corruption? The use of one's position in order to profit
illegally. High
ministerial salaries simply permit the PAP to use their position in
order to
profit legally. A simple analogy: it is illegal for someone to
shoplift a
gold necklace from a jewelry store. But this thievery would be
perfectly
legal if we had no laws against shoplifting in the first place. One
could
profit in an arguably unethical manner without breaking any laws.
Similarly, it would be illegal for the Prime Minister to siphon
away $2 million a year.
But as a politician in power, instead of siphoning it away, he
simply
ensures that he can receive $2 million a year in a
perfectly transparent and above-board manner. That's what they
really mean by the concept of high ministerial salaries removing
the need for
corruption. They don't need to be corrupt: we just hand over the
money
anyway.
Yes, there are benefits to the system. It keeps corruption under
control by removing the primary incentive for it - money. And a
corruption-free
government undeniably attracts investors. According to
Transparency
International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) we are ranked as
the 5th least corrupt nation in the world as of 2005, after
Iceland, New Zealand, Finland and Denmark. But the investigation
does not, and must not stop there.
There is a basic principle to keeping ministerial salaries
from
skyrocketing, and it is one that is often overlooked in
Singapore.
Politicians in our government exist not to further their own
interests, but
to subordinate their personal advancement to the needs of the
nation. They serve the nation, and not the other way round. As a
child, I used to wonder why they were called civil servants - the
word 'servant' always had insulting connotations of someone that's
second-class, servile and unworthy of much note. But as I grew, I
came to realise that there is great dignity, perhaps even the
greatest dignity, in being a servant of others; in placing their
needs above your own, and in committing yourself to serve and
protect them. That is the sacred vow, the tacit contract that
politicians undertake by entering this service. Lower salaries make
it
clear that they are fundamentally different from those in the
private sector
who seek to profit from their positions, making the frequent
comparison
between public workers and private ones like corporation directors
or media stars totally redundant. The nature and purpose of their
work are as different as night and day. Managing ministerial
salaries ensures, too,
that people do not enter politics simply to gain from the high pay
and
benefits, but that they do so because they genuinely want to put
their
talents to the good use of representing the country. Else, people
would work towards entering the government simply because of the
dangling carrot that is a fat pay cheque - which would clearly
have
disastrous consequences for us all.
That is why George Bush, who is the leader of the most powerful
country in the world and has far more responsibilities than PM Lee
will ever have, is paid five and a half times less. That is why
there was such a public outcry when TT Durai's salary was uncovered
- it was legal and above board, but it was wrong in principle. But
here in Singapore, this important principle isover-ridden, once
again, by the excuse that it keeps corruption under control. Very
well then, let us bring that reason under scrutiny.
According to the aforementioned CPI, there are four countries in
the world
which are even less corrupt than ours. As Singaporean ministers are
paid
the highest in the world, it obviously goes to follow that all
these
countries' ministers are paid less than ours. I did a bit of
research and found out, via this article, that New Zealand PM Helen
Clark's
salary is NZD 305 000 per annum, or USD 189 440 - less than George
Bush, andsix and a half times less than PM Lee (I converted 305 000
NZD into 189 440 USD with the latest exchange rate of 1.61). New
Zealand is ranked 3 places above Singapore in the CPI, as the 2nd
least corrupt government in the world. Why is it that New Zealand
ministers can be even less corrupt than our ministers, and yet are
paid so many times less?
If we allow ourselves to succumb to the mentality that we need to
pay them obscene amounts of money in order for them not to be
corrupt, we are implying that they otherwise cannot be trusted;
that unless they benefit so much from their positions, they cannot
do a good job; that our ministers are six and a half times more
inferior, six and a half times more selfish and six and a half
times more prone to corruption than ministers from New Zealand (not
to mention Iceland, Finland and Denmark). I would like to be
convinced otherwise, but the message being sent by our high
ministerial salaries is proving it difficult. Let me tell you what
makes it even more difficult: that salaries are being paid to the
members of our government, on top of the lucrative salaries they
are enjoying in their professional
lives.
This brings me to the next issue: politics in money. Our MPs do not
work
full-time. They hold very prominent positions in businesses all
throughout
Singapore, and little wonder, too; they are recruited from these
positions
with the natural assumption that their high-flying careers make
them
capable, and not forced to give up their jobs, which are extremely
demanding and exacting. Only Chiam See Tong, as of April 21 2006
(the release date of the CNA article I'm reading at the ...[Message
truncated]
